Who's a Republican?
jimhalsted
Ontario
Elmer Fudd seems obvious, what with the gun and the hunting, but I figure Bugs is a Democrat and big Animal Rights Activist.
Foghorn Leghorn is very conservative.
The Dog is probably a Dem.
Daffy seems like the kind of person, er um, duck, that would not bother to register to vote. But if he did, he would vote Republican out of spite for Bugs.
Tweety and Sylvester both seem like independents.
I'm sure Porky Pig votes with the conservatives to help maintain his straight laced image, but he has a dark side and I'll bet he spends plenty of time at the strip clubs.
Pepe Le Pew, Speedy Gonzalez, and the Tasmanian Devil are illegal immigrants. Can't vote, but support the Bush Guest Worker plan.
Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner are tough to peg. RR is very tight lipped about his views. Wile E Coyote is a genius and those academic types tend to be more liberal.
Yosemite Sam is a Libertarian.
Foghorn Leghorn is very conservative.
The Dog is probably a Dem.
Daffy seems like the kind of person, er um, duck, that would not bother to register to vote. But if he did, he would vote Republican out of spite for Bugs.
Tweety and Sylvester both seem like independents.
I'm sure Porky Pig votes with the conservatives to help maintain his straight laced image, but he has a dark side and I'll bet he spends plenty of time at the strip clubs.
Pepe Le Pew, Speedy Gonzalez, and the Tasmanian Devil are illegal immigrants. Can't vote, but support the Bush Guest Worker plan.
Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner are tough to peg. RR is very tight lipped about his views. Wile E Coyote is a genius and those academic types tend to be more liberal.
Yosemite Sam is a Libertarian.
120 comments
This must be obvious to most, but not me.
Shaggy-very much the green party, but votes libertarian because of the private land-growing pot issue
Thelma-considers herself an intellectual democrat-very much a hillary supporter.
Fred & Daphne-Republicans, but sometime Daphne votes dem in congressional elections, just for fun.
Scooby-isn't supposed to be allowed to vote, but he keeps his voter ID card around for giggles
Example:
Possibly the most Democratic state in the Nation (Massachusetes) has very few strip clubs, and the one's they do have are pretty tame (from what I have read). The same holds true for almost all New England states (which usually lean to the left)
OTOH, Texas, a very Republican State has the most strip clubs, and I think they also have the most liberal laws regarding strip clubs. Florida and Arizona(other "conservative" states) are not far behind.
just my 2 cents.
Batman is a Republican, and "The Dark Knight" has Bruce Wayne taking a decidely "W"-esque approach to fighting the terror spread by the Joker.
Aquaman is a member of the Green Party.
Wonder Woman is unaffiliated. She doesn't trust any of them, knowing how they lie.
How do the two major parties reconcile the hypocracy of their positions? If you are in favor of less government and less intrusive regulation by government, you would not restrict SC's except for laws designed to protect residential zoning. But some conservatives see SC's as immoral and want to regulate them out of existence with tests about secondary effects on property values and increaased crime. If you are in favor of freedom of expression--dancing being one form of artistic expression--then how do you explain costume, stage distance, touching and contact restrictions? Being a Republican does not mean you are opposed to SC's any more than being a Democrat means you accept anything goes in the VIP.
Marge is a Democrat (Femi-nazi / soccer mom / education and art) with a smidgen of Hockey Mom Palin-ublican thrown in. Homer forgets to vote. Lisa is a Republican (though she'll always vote Democrat, she'll always know she's better than everyone else) and Bart is a Democrat (though he'll always vote Republican, he'll always need a hand-out he doesn't deserve).
Homer (the classical Greek author) is a Democrat. His people all throw in their two cents from every level. Virgil is a Republican: hierarchies and pecking orders abound, often to the benefit of all involved despite their inherent inequity.
Democrats: Foghorn Leghorn (Dixiecrat -- state's rights!), Sylvester (too clumsy and self-involved to be Republican), Granny (FDR!).
Republicans: Wile E. Coyote (invests in small business enterprises, favors lower taxation for the Acme entrepreneur), Tweety (tough on crime! didn't anybody ELSE tee a puddy tat? tomebody hep me get WID of dat puddy tat!), Sheepdog.
Sheepdog even LOOKS like Cheney ...
Yosemite Sam you could make a case either way -- he's a Goldwater/McCain Arizona Republican, but he'd hate the notion of the Religious Right taking over that party.
The philosophy of Bugs Bunny is really quite complex, and worthy of further study. There are great Libertarian tendencies throughout his lifestyle, and he's obviously a sort of louche type, with an interest in the relaxed lifestyle. A man of great elan and sang froid, but also of great laissez-faire sentiments. Someone who models himself after the great libertines of the past -- Louis Quinze, Beau Brummel, Oscar Wilde ... and Hefner. Hugh Hefner. Ever notice Bugs' smoking jacket and cigar? Hmmmm?
As for Daffy Duck. Depending on what party you consider yourself to be a member of, you'll say he's the other.
Democrats: "Daffy's clearly a Republican. He's a neurotic reactionary, hysterically pointing out imagined threats and flaws in perfectly sound situations."
Republicans: "Daffy's clearly a Democrat. He's running about like a duck with his head cut off, unable to stick to a single topic or endeavor, forever starting again or stumbling over himself."
And what about Mickey?
Anarchy NOW!
Seems like Democrats are in love with more government and so are Republicans especially more government in the form of bombs and bullets, police and prisons, religion and repression. Oh yeah, Republicans are usually more excited by waving the flag----a total turn-off even if I liked the country.
So who grew government faster, President Clinton or President Bush? I don't know the answer, but just assume it was President Bush.
A Bush spokesman said the President meant to refer to discretionary spending minus military spending and spending for homeland security. But what the President actually said was wrong."
http://www.factcheck.org/defending_spend…
"Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years" http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news…
These articles could be 100% wrong, but to me it appeared President Bush was spending like a drunken sailor because like many so called conservatives he is in love with more government. I think the only thing these so called conservatives love more than bigger government is endless wars like the phoney war on drugs or the phoney war on terror or the phoney war on illegal immigrants. The government seems to be about 100% corrupt and the flag wavers are loving every drop of it.
In the name of protecting the taxpayer. :) The funny thing is the massive giveaway to billionaires actually may result in more tax "rebates" to the working class. Billionaire gets a million and that means Joes taxpayer should get a $100 "rebate" from the government to spend at Walmart. :) The billion dollar bailout is actually probably going to end up putting more money in the working classes pockets sort of as hush money. Too many people fall into the 2 + 2 = 4 fallacy thinking that more government spending has to equal higher taxes! LOL! :)
As for President Bush, he is not a conservative. His spending spree demonstrates this. But he's been superlative on counter-terrorism, even if he's fouled up in other areas.
To help alleviate the problems caused by both R's and D's in congress, I favor term limits for both legislative bodies, as we have for the executive. It will take a constitutional amendment.
I consider the war on terror just another government fraud to increase the size and power of government. Yes, I know you think it wonderful getting the U.S. into an endless war on behalf of Israel. Israel could be the greatest country on Earth and I would say it isn't worth a single $1 to defend. It is a tiny country in a hostile region and it doesn't have any real value to the U.S. and in fact has a huge negative value in that it places America into a religious war to defend God's purportedly chosen people and holy lands. If you believe that religious garbage it is worth spending trillions to defend Israel and you should be happy to pay 50% or more of your income to the government for that purpose.
There are "conservatives" who love government spending: Spending for prisons, wars, morality, etc.
I've never consider President Bush to be a conservative (probably a minority view) and if he is a conservative then communism looks very attractive by comparison, imo. :)
shamllionaire,
After trying to read your ramblings, it is easy to see you are mostly illiterate. My son could write, spell, and form grammatically correct sentences when he was five. YOU, my friend, are a product of liberalism! Ignorant!
As if government doesn't exploit you? And don't forget, there are a myriad of governments to do that job for you. If all were good, in this country, the federal government would follow the Constitution (just a couple of obligations), and then the states could compete for their citizens. Those run like many in the NE (liberal) would have no one there to exploit.
So, your knee-jerk defensive response displays a set of assumptions about what you think I was trying to say.
Conservative: Wants little government intervention in business; more government intervention in people's private lives.
Liberal: Wants more government intervention in business; less government intervention in people private lives.
Libertarian: Wants little government intervention in either business or private lives.
Populist: Wants government intervention in both business and private lives.
I am a Liberal. I know that word has lost favor over the last 18 years. Ever since the election of Ronald Reagan, liberals have been on the defensive. George H. W. Bush made the term one of disgrace. He refused to even utter the word, instead referring to "the L word."
Liberals ended slavery. A liberal Republican. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of Americans out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Right Act and the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act.
How, with a record like that, "Liberal" became a dirty word, is beyond me.
Real simple...
Other than the basic human rights type of issues, the rest cost those of us that provide for ourselves and out family, TRILLIONS of dollars to try and take care of those that refuse to do so. And if anything, liberals have made it WORSE on them. You, like most liberals, fail to look at the RESULTS of what you do, and only speak of what you intended to accomplish.
However you define the terms, and however you would choose to label me, here's my political philosophy in overview: I want to preserve the fundamentals of the Nation as founded. I want the constitution to be regarded as meaning exactly what it says, and any changes to it should be made through the amendment process, not from the bench. I reject socialism and all its variants and applications. I recognize that supply-side economic theory is based on assumptions about human behavior that are consistent with reality. I think term limits for legislators would solve many problems, because it would change their decision calculus for the better ("what is best for my constituents?" instead of "how do I keep my job as a congressperson?").
I consider myself "conservative," but you may choose to label me differently, based on your previous definitions.
We've had this discussion here before...most of the Right-leaning people that tend to post here are more libertarian (with a few exceptions) than anything else. I had the same reaction as you did when I first started to hear some of the posters here express their opinions on political issues...oh well...
"The same holds true for almost all New England states (which usually lean to the left)"
Well, in RI prostitution is legal when conducted indoors, and I recently read that they actually have 28 or so brothels in the state (though I couldn't tell you where any of them were, unless they were counting some of the SCs & AMPs in that number).
"Texas, a very Republican State has the most strip clubs, and I think they also have the most liberal laws regarding strip clubs."
Nah...they are currently trying to shut down a LOT of SCs in TX by using a "poll tax" and other means. In San Francsico, they have some measure on the ballot (that I'm sure the local, liberal politicians don't support) to basically legalize prostitution there.
What's up with the "new" TUSCL look and switching to tuscl.net??
What a joke...supply-side, trickle-down, voodoo economics is a completely dead issue, period end of story.
As for founder's whole strip club/political comparison. Well, honestly founder I've lived in Boston my entire life and I can remember when the downtown area called the "Combat Zone" had about thirty strip clubs in about a six block radius. During the same period-through the mid 80's-there were also dozens more clubs in the burbs than there are now. Democrats didn't close these clubs down. Property values and the demand for strip malls instead of strippers caused most of the decline. In downtown Boston the demand for land to build on put most of the club owners in a position to clean up financially by selling their old buildings so they could be demolished to make room for high priced condos, banks, parking garages, hotels and retail...
New Hampshire has fewer clubs than Mass and it is considered a Republican State. RI is a small state with some of the dirtiest clubs in the country.
New England is Puritanical at it's base and political to a degree but we pretty much do whatever the fuck we want.
Sen Obama also wants to stifle the discussion. He said, "I want to destroy the very philosophy of supply-side economics." He wants to end debate on many topics, claiming that we must simply accept his viewpoint and shut up about it all. Like all Marxists, he knows his ideas don't stand up well to debate. I don't go for being silenced by political leaders.
Speaking of economics, and it seems we agree from your previous post, I thought you might like the below on our tax policy.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20 declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
And yet again, we see how "conservatives" in this country believe that the nature of man is essentially "bad", while liberals tend to believe that the nature of man is essentially good. We really CAN do more good together than we can individually.
The history of supply-side economic policies in this country is very, very simple...they lead to the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the federal budget getting wildly out of balance. This has happened TWICE now...under two different GOP Presidents and when Congress was controlled by *either* Party. The jury is out...just look at the current financial mess that the country is in, primarily due to the failed GOP policies of deregulation. Even Greenspan has realized that he was wrong!
"I don't go for being silenced by political leaders."
Then be "silenced" by the FACTS of history!
"And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works"
...under the GOP.
In 1977, President Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), intended to force banks to loosen their lending standards so that more people could buy houses. The progress toward that goal was very slow, and in 1995, President Clinton greatly strengthened the CRA. President Clinton also warned banks and lending institutions that Attorney General Reno would pursue them with legal consequences if they did not lend more to those who could not traditionally qualify for mortgages.
Then, Illinois Sen Barack Obama trained members of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) on ways to intimidate lenders into making those riskier loans (tactics included protesting in bank lobbies and in front of the houses of bank officers). But the lenders still tried to avoid that destructive practice, pointing out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Government Sponsored Enterprises) were reluctant to bundle securities with those risky mortgages. Sen Obama and his partner, William Ayers, funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN, and led them to shift tactics: lobby democrats in the U.S. Congress to force Fannie and Freddie to accept those risky mortgages in securities bundles.
Several people, notably Sen McCain, sounded warning alarms that these bad lending practices would lead to a credit crunch, a sub-prime meltdown, and a housing market collapse. The democrats, notably Sen Dodd and Rep Frank, said, “we see no problem.â€
Sen McCain was proven correct. Sen Obama, meanwhile, was a catalyst for causing the crisis.
Simplistic. Let's take the case of those in society who cannot help themselves (e.g. retards like MisterGay, and schizophrenics like parodyman). Ask a conservative and a liberal idealist what would be done about them under their ideal system? Conservative will tell you that men are good enough that it would be dealt with through private charity. And they'll cite examples of wealthy philanthropists. E.g. Gates, Buffet, Ford. Ask the liberal, and he'll tell you that men aren't good enough to do it on their own, so government must obligated them too.
So, once again, MisterGay talking out of his ass... As always we are forced to conclude that....
MISTERGAY LOSES AGAIN!
Very appealing to me is Obama's alleged anti-American attitudes----sounds like a man with a real conscience sorta like Bill Ayers and the Reverand Wright. Anyway, McCain or Obama would be fine and dandy. Now that Biden fellow seems shifty---like he wishes to sink poor Obama.
The CRA had absolutely nothing to do with the current economic meltdown. The CRA is a U.S. federal law that merely requires banks and savings & loan associations to offer credit throughout their *entire* market area. The act prohibits financial institutions from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as “redlining.†The purpose of the CRA is to ensure that under-served populations can obtain credit, including home ownership opportunities & commercial loans to small businesses. CRA loans are both profitable & not overly risky, and approximately half of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were NOT regulated by the CRA. Twenty-five to thirty percent came from only “partially†CRA regulated bank subsidiaries & affiliates. Apparently, institutions that were fully regulated by the CRA made perhaps one in four sub-prime loans. The worst & most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the LEAST federal oversight (hence the government-created problem IMO).
According to the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made “high-priced loans†at more than twice the rate of the banks & thrifts. She also stated that most CRA loans have been responsibly made and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis. Studies have shown that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did...the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans to other parties. This kind of “bundlingâ€, which was allowed by GOP-sponsored deregulation of the industry in the late 1990s (again, govt. gone awry IMO), was one of the main reasons that this crisis happened in the first place.
"The progress toward that goal was very slow, and in 1995, President Clinton greatly strengthened the CRA."
Nonsense, in 2000, due to a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD under the Clinton administration, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place at Fannie Mae that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals, but then, in 2004, these rules were dropped by the Bush Regime and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.
"President Clinton also warned banks and lending institutions that Attorney General Reno would pursue them with legal consequences if they did not lend more to those who could not traditionally qualify for mortgages."
This is not even CLOSE to the truth.
"Then, Illinois Sen Barack Obama trained members of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) on ways to intimidate lenders into making those riskier loans (tactics included protesting in bank lobbies and in front of the houses of bank officers)."
Again, there is ZERO evidence that Obama ever trained anyone at ACORN to even remotely do any of this.
"But the lenders still tried to avoid that destructive practice, pointing out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Government Sponsored Enterprises) were reluctant to bundle securities with those risky mortgages."
The term “subprime†refers to loans that don’t meet Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac guidelines in the first place! According the Wall Street Journal of all places, in 2006 61% of all borrowers receiving subprime loans had credit scores high enough to qualify for prime conventional loans. Many subprime borrowers also took out ARMs (see below).
The markets that were created for these “subprime†mortgages and the subsequent “bundling†of loans to be sold of was only allowed after the GOP-sponsored degregulation in the late 1990s.
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/15…
"lobby democrats in the U.S. Congress to force Fannie and Freddie to accept those risky mortgages in securities bundles."
We’ll just ignore the fact that McSame’s campaign manager (who’s doing a great job IMHO, for Obama) used to lobby up until very, very recently (this year!) for Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac as well. Also, let’s ignore what we’ve already learned about McSame jumping on the “reform†bandwagon 16 months after the "reform" bill that he "co-sponsored" was introduced in the Senate (it was long since dead by then).
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?…
http://www.rollcall.com/news/28629-1.htm…
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160561/output…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081019/ap_o…
Even Greenspan (who at the behest of the Bush Regime pushed ARMs very, very hard) has repented on the negative effect of the "conservative" philosophy of deregulation! The FACT is that the GOP controlled almost everything in D.C. for almost 6 full years before this crisis occured, and they did absolutely NOTHING to change anything or try & head off this crisis, period.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/bus…
"conservatives see the GOOD in man, and liberals do not!"
Yea, that's why "conservatives" live in fear of their own govt. (which is merely a group of Americans acting on the democratic will of the people)...sure, sure...
Since you were so generous with your reply, I extend to you this offer: I will pay you $20,000.00 if Obama becomes president and he keeps his promise not to raise any of my taxes (as I currently make less than $250k). You get the money in January of 2013, if the condition I just stated is met. But if indeed my taxes increase during those four years, you must pay all of the difference.
Easy money, right? I can find no liberal to take the wager, as they all know Obama is lying.
Right, because the longest, sustained, post-war economic expansion in the 1990s was a bad thing...please...don't let the actual facts get in the way of your blind ideology there wing-nut.
Obama is NOT a socialist, Marxist, or communist...the red herrings don't work anymore BTW.
"I will pay you $20,000.00 if Obama becomes president and he keeps his promise not to raise any of my taxes (as I currently make less than $250k)"
LOL...I don't want your money moron. Whether Obama's tax plan will be implemented as it is right now is up to Congress, Obama, and the conditions that prevail at the time any future action is taken. I can tell you this though...the rich will pay more under Obama than under McSame (not that I care at all...they did just fine under the Clinton-era tax scheme). BTW, there is no "if Obama becomes president"...it's a virtual done deal now...repeat after me:
President Obama!
Come on MisterGay. That is so, well, gay! Put your money where your mouth is (oh, hold on, your mouth is probably close to... well since you are gay... n/m).
I mean take the bet. Or are you too chicken? Are we forced to conclude that....
MISTERGAY LOSES AGAIN!
"red herring?" Where did MisterGay take his critical thinking or logic course? The correct term would be "straw man". And guess what...
MISTERGAY LOSES AGAIN!
-- the "longest sustained post-war economic expansion" (which lasted from the late 1980's through about 2007) was the result of Reagan saving us from Carter. (Republican saving us from Democrat; conservative saving us from liberal)
The current downturn coincided with the liberals re-acquisition of congress in 2006.
-- the "rich" pay more of the overall taxes into the federal revenue under Bush than they did under Clinton.
The fact that MisterGay won't take up the bet with you speaks the loudest. And here's what it says... MISTERGAY LOSES AGAIN!
"the 'longest sustained post-war economic expansion' (which lasted from the late 1980's through about 2007) was the result of Reagan saving us from Carter."
Wrong...the economy was in the tank in 1990–1991 (recession) due to industrial production & manufacturing-trade sales decreasing. It only went on a tear after Clinton was in office. The economy went into the tank again in 2001–2003 (another recession) after the collapse of the dot-com bubble, the 9/11 attacks, and various private accounting scandals.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/47291-u-…
"The current downturn coincided with the liberals re-acquisition of congress in 2006."
No, it really didn't. Housing prices peaked in early 2005, then began declining in 2006. The Dems didn't take over Congress until 2007, and the idea that the crisis that we are in now wouldn't have happened if they didn't take over in 2007 is ludicrous!
"the 'rich' pay more of the overall taxes into the federal revenue under Bush than they did under Clinton."
No, they don't. According to the IRS, federal tax rates under Clinton...15% up to 39.6%; tax rates under Bushy Boy 10-15% up to 35-39.1%.
Consider again the Clinton era. His first two years were so horrible, it lead to the conservative revolution and the dems loss of congress for the first time in about 40 years. Gingrich and his new majority said they could balance the budget within about 4 years, but Clinton said "NO! It will take at least 8 more..." (meaning, not during his term or terms). Gingrich & Co. did it in 3, Clinton signed their budget, and then he tried to claim credit for it!
The dot-com bubble was absolutely indicative of the Clinton era: an appearance that all was hunky-dorey, absolutely no substance, and an overinflated value for nothing. That it "burst" shortly after Clinton departed does not mean it was representative of Bush.
And the 2001 recession you cite was Clinton's! Bush inherited that, along with having to immediately deal with terrorism (since Clinton never wanted to be bothered with that). Bush did an amazing job of sparing us an unimaginable collapse in the economy during 2001-2003.
Now, as for the response you gave about tax rates. My claim was "the 'rich' pay more of the overall taxes into the federal revenue under Bush than they did under Clinton." My claim is 100% accurate, although your stats on the rates are uncontested. The relevant facts are that revenues increased following the Bush tax cuts, and that the percentage of those revenues that came from "the rich" increased.
You are wrong about every claim you make. And Americans obviously prefer capitalism (supply-side economics), as Sen Obama has tried to pretend like he supports it, following his accidental revelation of the truth that he is a socialist. He just said [paraphrasing], Government policies in America should support capitalism.
Guess you've gotta hate him now, too? Nah, you know he's lying. He hates capitalism, and he hates America. That is why he says our constitution is "fundamentally flawed," and why he says he wants to "fundamentally change" America.
You mean when he passed the Family & Medical Leave Act, passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income families, created the AmeriCorps volunteer program, and passed (with ZERO GOP votes) the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which ended up balancing the federal budget by the end of Clinton's term...allowing for tax cuts for fifteen million low-income families & 90% of small businesses?? Sound familiar to a plan that you might have heard Obama mention...hmmmmm??
"Gingrich and his new majority said they could balance the budget within about 4 years"
And their efforts, according to the Congressional Budget Office, HURT the ability of the federal govt. to achieve a balanced budget! Clinton presided over the longest period of peace-time economic expansion in American history, which included a balanced budget and a federal budget surplus.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&…
http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/Wor…
"The dot-com bubble was absolutely indicative of the Clinton era"
No, the "dot-com bubble" was a speculative bubble which combined rapidly increasing stock prices, individual wild speculation in stocks, and widely available venture capital that created an exuberant environment in which many of businesses stupidly dismissed standard business models, focusing on increasing market share at the expense of the bottom line.
"And the 2001 recession you cite was Clinton's!"
Right, because the deregulation of many, many businesses that happened in the late 1990s at the behest of the GOP Congress, which allowed those many private accounting scandals was all Clinton's fault...sure, sure...
"My claim is 100% accurate"
No, it isn't...you can't cite a single source that proves that BTW.
"The relevant facts are that revenues increased following the Bush tax cuts"
Even Bush's own Treasury Secretary at the time Paul O'Neill, was opposed to some of those tax cuts on the basis that they would contribute to budget deficits. Gee, I wonder why no one listened to him, since he turned out to be correct??
Under the Bush Regime, real GDP has grown at an average annual rate of 2.5 percent, which is considerably below the average for business cycles from 1949 to 2000. As long as the GDP in the USA grows, tax revenues will usually grow as well...they grew a LOT more under Clinton than under GWB though.
"And Americans obviously prefer capitalism (supply-side economics)"
Again, there is absolutely ZERO evidence of this or that capitalism = voodoo economics, period.
Obama's not "a socialist"...that's yet another red herring.
"he hates America"
Blather on moron.
"That is why he says our constitution is 'fundamentally flawed,'"
Nonsense.
By contrast, whether or not Obama is a socialist or Marxist or commie is very relevant to whether or not he can be entrusted to fix this mess, and more importantly be entrusted with he does with his powers after that if he can. So that is definitely not a red herring.
Now, it's pretty clear to me that Obama is no socialist, and saying he is just an attempt to defeat an imagined enemy that everyone knows how to debate, rather than attacking the man for what he really is. Hence "straw man". Get it right MisterGay, or continue to look like the clown that you are. (And since you will never admit you are wrong no matter how over whelming the evidence, I know that will just tangle yourself up more and more over this one...)
Hence the fact that it's a red herring, you moron troll...ugh...
clubber, just admit that you would rather give up than actually debate an issue...just like always...you are truly, utterly pathetic.
But keep tangling yourself up, rather than just admitting you are wrong. Same pattern as always, faggot. Quite comical.
Wallace Shawn spouts off a bunch of irrelevant nonsense, and Wesley says, "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." Response: "WAIT 'til I get going!"
MG, you do posit conclusions bearing no relation to the facts you reference, and you do answer contentions never offered. Peace.
Have you heard his public radio discussion from earlier this decade? He very clearly explains at length why he disdains the U.S. Constitution (it represents a persistent "fundamental flaw," and does not support his desired redistributive policies), and how he considers the Warren Court not radical enough because they "never implemented redistribution...for economic justice."
The "fundamental change" to America he promised in his closing statement during the third debate is aimed at fixing these problems he sees in America. That is, "destroying the very philosophy" of capitalism, and instead "spreading the wealth around." His own words reveal him to be a socialist. I find no other interpretation sensible.
I noticed that RED HERRING of MisterGay's myself and was going to gently point it out to him but you beat me to it! (Guess MisterGay likes to project his propensity to throw out red herring onto others. LOL!)
MisterGay doesn't have much of a logic or mathematical mind as you can see. At the same time he won't back down when you demonstrate this. Same thing with facts. So just get him to take the bait in one of these areas and you can have fun bashing him for ages!
Ok...
Simplified explanation for MisterGay (hypothetical numbers so you can get the gist of the underlying math):
What if the rich, on average made twice what they did under Clinton, the poor stayed the same, and the number of rich and poor people stayed the same? Can you see that the rich would be paying a bigger percentage of the total amount of tax revenue? Or is your math so bad you can't even grok that one?
Hahaha! MISTEGAY LOSES AGAIN! (BIG TIME!)
Keep those schoolyard insults coming troll...I wouldn't expect any better from the sorry likes of you...LOL!!
"you do posit conclusions bearing no relation to the facts you reference, and you do answer contentions never offered. Peace."
I accept your surrender you Right-wing fool...just like always...a "conservative" with a very strong ideologically-based opinion that is based on absolutely, positively NO verifiable facts whatsoever.
"He very clearly explains at length why he disdains the U.S. Constitution"
No, he really doesn't.
"the poor stayed the same, and the number of rich and poor people stayed the same?"
Too bad that's NOT what happened troll. Have fun discussing adult issues with a troll BTW...lol...
I think we're all done here. :)
Red herring. MisterGay, our point was to show that your attempt to disprove how's statement by merely quoting tax rates proved nothing, since he was talking about percentage of total tax revenue. I don't if his claim is true or not. However by merely citing tax rates and not overall income, you did not disprove it, as the example demonstrates. Perhaps he is right when you put in real numbers, perhaps he is wrong, but your disproof was a joke, and demonstrates (once again) how weak your mathematical and logical abilites are.
MG, you repeatedly beg for us to end the discussion ("I think we're all done here."). This is a favorite tactic of the left. After answering questions never asked, ignoring the actual issues being discussed, and having thrown out loads of facts that add up to zero relevance or impact, claim victory and declare the discussion closed! Pathetic.
http://theindependentview.com/?p=278
(It also includes linked YouTUBE audio.)
A definition of debate, "An informal and spirited but generally civil discussion of opposing views." Ok, that said, I see no point of discussion, civil or not, with one that completely IGNORES FACTS. Might as well as debate a wall. Well, on second thought, that is what I was doing. End of story.
Not at all...I'm just waiting for someone with some verifiable facts (not YOU of course because all you have to state is your uninformed, ideologically-based opinions over & over again) to say anything relevant.
"[appears to be a break in the audio clip]"
Which, of course, would likely provide some *context* to Obama's remarks...unbelievable! More utter nonsense from, of course, a Right-wing blog.
Speaking of you clubber...you NEVER have any facts to bring to the table...only links to Right-wing opinion pieces that you pathetically try to pawn off as "facts".
"I see no point of discussion, civil or not, with one that completely IGNORES FACTS."
I agree...that's one of the main reasons why you give up so easily all the time...because you have ZERO facts to back up your arguments!
I claimed earlier that the "rich" pay a higher percentage of the overall revenues to the federal treasury since the Bush tax cuts. Bobbyl asked for some backup information for reference ("I don't know if his claim is true or not"). Here it is.
According to the IRS, as of 2004, here is a partial breakout of who pays how much in taxes:
Top 1% Income Level:
--Earn 19% of all U.S. income
--Pay 37% of all U.S. tax revenues
Top 10% Income Level:
--Earn 44% of all U.S. income
--Pay 68% of all U.S. tax revenues
(For comparison, the IRS also reports that the bottom half of income earners pay a total of 3% of all U.S. tax revenues.)
The next relevant information is how much of the burden "the rich" would have paid, but for the Bush tax cuts. The U.S. Department of the Treasury compiled that information, incorporating the IRS data.
With the Bush tax cuts, we know the top 1% of income earners pay 37% of all taxes.
If the Bush tax cuts didn't happen, Treasury estimates the top 1% would pay 31% of all taxes.
With the Bush tax cuts, we know the top 10% of income earners pay 68% of all taxes.
If the Bush tax cuts didn't happen, Treasury estimates the top 10% would pay 63% of all taxes.
Therefore, the conclusion is as I stated: the "rich" pay a higher percentage of overall revenues to the federal treasury since the Bush tax cuts.
Yes, I was serious. When I see government corruption as the framework and foundation e.g. the $700 billion dollar bailout and the endless government wars and court system and legislature, then basically it is for me good ridance to the free market and time for the government corruption to spread to actually helping the needy and average Joe. Screw that Joe the plumber moron who is total fake, btw. Yes, it would be wonderful if the free market was an option. It is not.
Thus, McCain and Obama can rally round the $700 billion bailout for billionaires and that is fine. But, the price is universal health care. A *right* to own a good home at government expense. A *right* to a college education or other education. A *right* to healthy tasty meals regardless of income or lack thereof. A *right* to an attorney for *any* civil or criminal case. The rich and flag wavers love corruption and that is fine, but it needs to be expanded to help ordinary folks. Endless war on terror and drugs? Fine. But, it ain't just war merchants and police who are going to enjoy the government gravy. Taxes? Except for the rich----forget about it. The government isn't shy about using its power to issue $$$ non-stop-----but, instead of making the Federal Reserve (a monopoly of private elite banks) filthy rich it is time to help oridinary folks without brain dead excuses e.g. that's socialism.
Communism or socialism? Who cares. I mean the government is throughly corrupt so whether it is communism or corruptionism makes little difference except that communism at least professes to be concerned about the little people. The free market is dead and considering the low level of understanding regarding the free market it is for the best that it is dead and buried; unfortunately.
1. Do nothing, and government will provide for you.
2. Work hard, and that which you earn will be confiscated to give to those who chose Option 1.
In such a system, almost no one would choose Option 2. Therefore, there will be no productivity, and no revenue to confiscate. So even those who choose Option 1 will still be screwed; it will just be everyone, instead of some of us!
At least if it comes down to "everyone" being screwed and thus refusing to produce it should equal a quicker end to the government's endless wars; both at home and abroad.
Besides, I care absolutely nothing for America because it is an openly corrupt country where people don't have any rights. Yes, other countries may be more corrupt---I don't know that. I do know that I care zero about a country whose courts are corrupt and laws are corrupt and leaders are corrupt. Rights? Rule of law? In this country? Please, it is giant fraud and the best part is Congress can do it right out in the open and it makes little difference because the people have no say. Prior to the $700 billion giveaway the Federal Reserve (those governmentally privileged elite bankers) allegedly printed over a half trillion dollars to bailout the super rich. Don't know why they needed to go to Congress to authorize greater billion dollar giveaways. Just to put the government on record and on the hook even moreso?
If it is not one government scam, then it another government scam. Limited government believers seem scarcier than hen's teeth.
parodyman--> was born a faggot.
parodyman--> is a faggot.
parodyman--> will always be a faggot.
And, of course, you're WRONG. Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art…
"Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found"
"The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent."
"Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent."
"The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop."
"For the bottom 20 percent of households, the combined Bush tax cuts averaged $250 each. The middle 20 percent received $1,090, while the top 1 percent garnered $78,460"
"The tax cuts this year will boost the income of millionaires by 10.1 percent, while middle-income families see a boost of 2.3 percent"
"Top 1% Income Level:
--Earn 19% of all U.S. income"
...which is up from 15% in 1999 according to the CBO.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=1545&ty…
"Top 10% Income Level:
--Earn 44% of all U.S. income"
...which is up from 39% in 1999.
According the U.S. Federal Reserve, if the federal taxation rate is compared with the wealth distribution rate, the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc.) distribution of the U.S. almost coincides exactly with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (wealth 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%). The Center on Budget & Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of U.S. taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes (which are very regressive) than they do in income taxes. In recent years, a reduction in the capital gains tax rates has significantly reduced the tax burden on income generated from savings & investing...these types of income are not generally received by low-income taxpayers BTW. Also, far more deductions & tax credits are available to higher-income taxpayers.
Nice try at twisting the facts around to meet your blind, Right-wing ideology, but it's not going to work, ever.
A FACT is a FACT, no matter the source. ANY I've given can easily be verified. I say they are FACTS, you do not, so go look them up, or is that to difficult a task for a proven idiot? BTW, a rhetorical question!
I've always thought of myself as a Republican....but I have to admit -- Bush has probably been the worst president I've seen in my 50 years upon this earth.
Frankly, I don't like either candidate. In a nation of over 300 million people, these two characters are the best we can come up with? Maybe I'll vote Libertarian like lopaw.
Now, let's get this fucking election over with so we can start discussing strip clubs again.
With "conservatives" like the 2 Bush Presidents voting Democratic or whatever seems like the lesser of 2 evils. And, in reality it doesn't make any difference to me who wins. Castro or Saddam or whoever could be running and it is like whatever----no one is too low to be a U.S. President, imo.
When the government wants endless war & endless fraud, that is the time to balance it out with endless benefits for the middle and lower income classes. There just isn't a social program that could be too generous in giving away money and resources to the poor and middle class. Nationalize the banks, the auto industry, Burger King, etc. etc. etc. The country doesn't deserve a free market economy even a little bit.
Then a little later
MG: "According the U.S. Federal Reserve [...] the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%)"
Contradiction? Care to explain, MG?
Perhaps we could agree on a solution: I think tax policy is fouled up, and you also think tax policy is fouled up. I propose: flat tax on all income, no deductions, no loopholes, no 80,000-page tax codes. In that scenario, the "rich" would certainly pay more, but all would have a stake in the process.
Thanks for providing the link to the Obama interview. I agree that his statements are very interesting, and imply some socialistic beliefs. However, the extent that he would go to implement his ideals is not clear. Also there is the fact that that interview is from 2001, and it's now 7 years later. I've certainly drifted right in that time. Maybe he has too? That being said, I think if one has a bit of "red" in them it never completely leaves them.
In any case, I say "bring it!" Couldn't be worse than what we have now.
It would be interesting to know the methodology the Federal Reserve used to determine people's "net worth" worth. With income taxes you are required to report your income, not your net worth.
No, they really aren't, and this is the problem with you "conservatives"...opinions are NOT facts & you guys just don't get that at all.
"Contradiction?"
No troll...one study refers to just federal income tax & the other refers to ALL taxes at the federal level...try & keep up idiot...
"the IRS and Treasury Dept data I provided did prove the contention I made earlier."
As I've clearly shown, with REAL data AND links to prove them, your "contention" is a complete Right-wing myth, period.
"I propose: flat tax on all income, no deductions, no loopholes, no 80,000-page tax codes."
Nope...nice try though...all a flat tax does is give a HUGE giveaway to the rich, period.
clubber is, of course, right when he says "A FACT is a FACT, no matter the source". That's just the law of identity.
clubber was pointing our your tendancy to engage in ad hominem logical fallacies in these discussion. That is, you will frequently fail to address a claim by your opponents, by simply saying something like "that omes from a right wing lunatic blog therefore it is wrong". Even right wing lunatic blogs can make true claims, MG. Therefore just saying it's from a source you disagree with is not enough to disprove the assertion.
Have a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
and try to avoid that logical fallacy in your discussions here, MG.
MG: "a flat tax does is give a HUGE giveaway to the rich"
This may be true, but it could very well be a red herring. If a flat tax results in a substantial increase in most everyone's living standard would you care that it was a HUGE giveaway to the rich?
Do you like the current tax structure, MG, or how would you like to see it changed?
It's possible that the rich are paying more in % of total income tax (how's claim) but less % of total tax (MG's claim). What would account for the difference? It could be that businesses are paying a larger % of total tax.
how has stated his ideal. A flat tax with no deductions.
I am curious what MG's ideal is.
Regardless, soaking the rich never results in improvements for those not-yet-rich. It's pointless.
Another aspect to my "ideal" changes to current tax policy: I would eliminate payroll deductions, and require everyone to pay their tax bill every month via check or EFT. People seem not to realize how much they are paying, because they never get the money in the first place. And government types like Rep Barney Frank and Sen Joe Biden always talk like it's THEIR money; that's got to change.
Not as far as I can tell.
Instead, have a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tr…
"If a flat tax results in a substantial increase in most everyone's living standard would you care that it was a HUGE giveaway to the rich?"
Since when has giving HUGE tax giveaways to the rich ended up "in a substantial increase in most everyone's living standard"?? Supply-side economic policies are dead, period.
"Do you like the current tax structure"
No, it needs to be MUCH more progressive than it already is (one could even make the argument that it's too "flat" based on looking at wealth distribution rates). I'd personally reduce farm/crop subsidies, increase aviation security fees, simplify...raise fees for the wealthy...and gradually push the eligibility to age 67 for Medicare starting in 2017, raise the cap on SS taxes on the rich, repeal ALL of the Bush tax cuts & tax the super rich (only for incomes of $500,000-1,000,000+) at around 45%, link the AMT to inflation, reform (by flattening/hiking to a 35% rate) corporate taxes, give $500-1000 tax credits to all working Americans, give $4000 tax credits for most American college students, raise tobacco taxes & taxes on multinational corporations, eliminate tax breaks for fossil fuel industries, reinstate 1990s taxes on toxic polluters, tax private equity/hedge fund managers at 35%, and eliminate local/state tax deductions. Doing all this would net the federal govt. roughly another $2.3 trillion over the next decade or so.
You can play with the federal budget on several sites like:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/featu…
http://www.nathannewman.org/nbs/
or even this line-by-line simulation that I haven't tried out yet:
http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/
"soaking the rich never results in improvements for those not-yet-rich"
...except during the recent history of the 1990s and the more distant past of other progressive administrations.
"Doing all this would net the federal govt. roughly another $6.6 trillion over the next decade or so."
MG: "Not as far as I can tell."
I don't think you're trying very hard, MG. I took a look some more at that "independent view" blog. I agree that there are lots of factually inaccurate claims, and just general lonniness.
However, I did find the following statement (posted Aug 23, 2008):
"Bush has only a few months left as president..."
Surely you don't disagree with that? Hence my claim that even right wing blogs can make true statements, and hence saying a statment is from a source you don't like is not suffecient to prove it false.
MG: "Instead, have a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tr… "
I did. Guess what? All I saw was a page containing the words "MisterGay + parodyman--> True Love.". (I leave the conclusion to the reader... ;-) )
MG: "Since when has giving HUGE tax giveaways to the rich ended up 'in a substantial increase in most everyone's living standard'?? Supply-side economic policies are dead, period. "
I think you missed the point here, MG. It was a hypothetical question, because I wanted to see what your real concern here is.
If your real concern is that you think it would detrimental to society overall then you should say that. If your problem is that it would not be detrimental overall but you just don't think its fair that the rich should get bigger breaks, then you should say that. (In the former case you should present your historical or theoretical evidence. I would be very intersted.)
In fact from your statement
">>>> all <<<< a flat tax does is give a HUGE giveaway to the rich, >>>>> period <<<<."
as it is written means that you don't think things would be worse, the rich would just get bigger breaks. period. If that were true then who gives a hoot? If some gets more money but it doesn't hurt me, what do I care?
I actually am anti-flat tax as well (but not religious about. Suffecient evidence could change my mind):
My intuition on the matter is that it would indeed be a huge tax break for the rich. I also think this is bad overall, b.c. as the rich get richer, it gets even easier for them to richer at the expense of everyone else. On its own concentration of wealth accelerates and without government intervention it all collapses into feudalism, and very rapidly. I think a flat tax would be a huge step in that direction.
No, you really wouldn't troll...you're just trying to prolong this pointless back-and-forth...no more troll feeding here...bye-bye now...
GaySpeak: "No, you really wouldn't troll...you're just trying to prolong this pointless back-and-forth...no more troll feeding here...bye-bye now..."
English Translation: "BobbyI called my bluff. I have no such evidence. I was talking out of my ass. MISTERGAY LOSES AGAIN, but runs away claiming victory."
MG talking out aloud about himself. I guess MG has totally lost it now. That's what happens when... MISTEGAY LOSES ONE TOO MANY TIMES!
LMFAO.
I missed a reply to me from you at an earlier date.
"Clubber ... you misunderstand. I didn't say government did NOT exploit me, I just hinted that government (of SOME form) is necessary to PREVENT others from exploiting me. Crime control, for instance, is a government function, without which (it is highly likely) many people would be unduly exploited by criminals.
So, your knee-jerk defensive response displays a set of assumptions about what you think I was trying to say."
We agree, but it is NOT the federal governments place to, "...PREVENT others from exploiting me." That has no place in the US Constitution, the same as most of what the federal government does. That should be left up to local government. There was a war of states rights, but perhaps, unfortunately, the wrong side won.
As a person, Bush is a good man. He used to be a spoiled punk, perhaps, but he grew up into a fine person.
As a republican, Bush is not a conservative. He never sought to limit government growth, and we'll continue paying for that for a long time.
On immigration, Bush has been wrong. Any geographic region without strictly enforced border security is not a country. We should make it easier for those who truly want to become Americans to immigrate, and we should slam the door hard on those who just want to come here to nurse at the breast of D.C.'s Treasury Department largesse.
On other security matters, Bush has been a spectacular success. Many who have not been part of the GWoT may have no idea how many plots to kill Americans and harm coalition interests have been thwarted as a direct result of the new approach to counter-terrorism. OEF and OIF are just parts of the overall effort.
100% agreed that the wrong side won.
LOL! President Bush is almost a total failure.
"The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a car bomb was detonated below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500 lb (680 kg) urea nitrate-hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people.[2][3] It failed to do so, but did kill six people and injured 1,042." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade…
It was the government's gross incompetence under President Bush that allowed the second WTC attack to happen. Furthermore, the government under President Bush has pretty much allowed open borders which would allow terrorists to enter freely and the number of inviting unsecured targets is practically unlimited.
I do believe President Bush's nutjob War on Terror throwing away 100s and 100s of billions of dollars and killing hundreds of thousands??? or merely tens of thousands of people may have appeased the Holy warriors from immediately attacking again in the U.S. I still remember Bin Laden smiling before the camera happily explaining (according to interpreters) that U.S. will destroy itself and there is no need for another attack in the U.S. What an accurate prediction that seems to be at this point in time. President Bush has adroitly made enemies all over the world and this is especially impressive given all the original sympathy expressed the world over.
President Bush is a mass murderer who would easily be convicted by a jury in many parts of America. Perhaps this "brave" man would be willing to stand trial before an international court of law? :)
Sorry, you give thumbs up to torture, mass murder, and fraud as well as massive government. President Bush is at best just an ignorant incompetent who has no idea of right from wrong.
To the government lovers: If President Bush has to order the killing of 500,000 non-American non-combatents in order to secure or save the lives of 4,000 Americans is that an acceptable trade-off in your opinion? Does this equal a "spectacular security success"?
Sorry, I don't see valuing American lives that greatly over the lives of other innocent people. Just another reason, imo, to detest flag wavers who believe butching thousands of innocents is a fair trade in order to save a far lesser number of innocent Americans. Of course, God may agree American lives are so much more valuable and in that case who am I to argue with an omnipotent being.
What an unbelievable display of ignorance...ugh...bring back slavery eh??
"OEF and OIF are just parts of the overall effort."
Iraq had *nothing* to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. President Obama will be re-focusing our efforts on where are REAL enemies are...in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
A truce! I'll just agree with everything you say. That way, we are both wrong!
I don't think I could have said it better!
The first WTC attack in 1993 was for the most part a failure. The second WTC attack in 2001 was for the Holy Warriors a massive success killing almost 3,000 people. Of course, gross government incompetence was crucial for the success of the Holy Warriors fairly elaborate plan of divine retribution---it wasn't like these guys or Bin Laden were some great government secret. So government incompetence is rewarded by around 1 trillion or so and going up in new government spending and the trashing of basic freedoms.
Let's try and put 1 trillion dollars into perspective. That is a 1 with twelve zeros!!!!!!!!! OK, I know that doesn't impress anyone. :( They're just zeros after all. Let's further say the government's phoney War on Terror saved another 3,000 American lives that would have perished in the government hadn't gone into nut job mode with President Bush leading the charge. The number could have been far fewer or far more. When I say far fewer remember there was almost a 10 year gap between the first WTC attack in 1993 and the second one in 2001. So how much did each potential life saved cost?
Well, $1,000,000,000,000/3,000 = $333,333,333.34!!! Yes, I know it is just numbers. But, that is over $333 million for each person that may have been saved. Of course, maybe 300,000 American lives were saved by the government's phoney War on Terror. In that case each life saved would cost a paltry $3 million plus dollars.
I know, I know, I know, a single American life is worth countless trillions to a "conservative." And, that is fine and dandy if it means the government will start paying in FULL the total health care costs for each American. You know universal health care e.g. socialism. This nit wit government can afford it with its printing press and besides real American lives will be saved and health improved. Oh, ban the automobile to save even more lives!!!
The government's War on Terror was not only a total fraud, but it was a huge waste of national resources (assuming I haven't screwed up the simple math big time :) ).
I assume that was intended as a joke.
--the number of people targeted in the 9/11 attacks: over 80,000
--the number of Americans targeted in the terrorists' strategic plans: over 300,000,000
So, that makes $1T about $3.33 per targeted American. A bargain. I'll gladly pay your part of that bill.
Now, if you think the $1 trillion plus is a bargain, then you should be a liberal. $1 trillion can save a lot of lives.
We're talking about a tiny group (19 or 20 Holy Warriors?) of nobodies who succeeded due almost entirely to gross government incompetence.
It wouldn't matter if this tiny group targeted 3 billion people because it is their capability that is important and not some far fetched dream.
I realize that you like to think the almost 3,000 people killed on 911 on the most important people on the planet. They aren't and they aren't by a long shot. I believe it is almost 100,000 Americans that die yearly as a result of medical mistakes. Gee, you think that $1 trillion might be better spent saving those people? According to your math 300 million people might end up in the hopital so spending an extra $1 trillion comes out to a measely $3.33 per American. We can play that silly game with any Federal program so spending $500 trillion per year is a bargain.
--the number of Americans targeted in the terrorists' strategic plans: over 300,000,000"
So much for a fact-based discussion eh??
Take a guess at how many of these "Holy Warriors" the coalition captured or killed between October 2001 and May 2005. And guess in how many countries this took place. Then I'll give you the answers.
There are serious issues to contend with in this world, and we need serious leaders willing to make tough decisions. Bush took mountains of crap from many people who had no clue about the responsibilities of his job.
Meanwhile the U.S. according to media reports that I've read was being viewed as worse than Saddam who wasn't a popular leader among many of his people. That is a huge feat to be viewed by ordinary Iraqis as worse than Saddam. Initially, many of the Iraqi people allegedly viewed the U.S. as liberators, but that was very short lived.
The serious issue is the nit wit U.S. government got involved in the middle of a Holy War, which was none of its beeswax. The Jews and Muslims were allegedly living in peace for hundreds and hundreds of years in that area of the world before the U.S. government decided to stick its big nose where it didn't belong and take sides. The solution isn't a massive government spending trillions against an enemy that is *tiny*, but peace. Peace as in stop funding and arming their enemy or gracefully accept that America will become a battle ground as ordinary muslims begin to see how little we value their lives and property. Heaven forbid the muslims fight back against U.S. government terrorism.
The U.S. should apologize profusely to the Islamic world and then take peaceful courses of action: No more bombing and butchering innocents and no more funding and arming their enemy. Perhaps huge reparations to our former enemies i.e. like we are funding former enemies in Iraq. The Israeli people can also choose peace or they can opt for more war. That is their business and the U.S. needs to keep it big nose out of it completely except for allowing Israelis who truly want peace to immigrate into the U.S.
And, with any luck the U.S. will become a hardcore communist or socialist nation thanks in huge part to the U.S. government's phoney War on Terror as well as its other phoney wars. Supposed "conservatives" deserve that big time and more. And, the world deserves a more peaceful progressive U.S. government. One that invests in its people and not in bombs, bullets, and billionaires!
Yes, it is pay back time for the U.S. government's aggressive war mongering and terrorism. Oh, it doesn't matter a bit if Israel is the world's greatest country with the world's best people. The stinking U.S. government has absolutely no business upsetting the apple cart by taking sides and causing decades of stupid war. If it is true, and I believe it was, that the Muslims and Jews were living in peace in that area of the world for hundreds of years, then taking sides by the U.S. goverment is a massive crime and completely brain dead if not premeditated evil.
I thought we weren't doing body counts anymore??
Save your fingers. There is just no reasoning with the unreasonable.
Do as I am going to do, agree with everything they say, and they and us can both be wrong.
That is an insult to a "low IQ kinda guy".